I hope that Pantheon shows MMORPG developers that they do not have to shoehorn PvP into their game no matter what... For example I believe ESO would have been a better game had they not had the 3 faction pvp setup ( used Arenas instead )..
Nearly every MMORPG now has PvP as a large part of it.. It isnt needed in every game all the time. Not as a main feature anyway. An MMORPG not having PvP isnt going to kill it.
Lets get / see this genre move back to closer mirroring the tabletop games ( MUDs and GMUDs too ) they were based off of and not a genre that tries to be everything and being average or worse at it.. Just MO.
Well the game doesn't have pvp and they went to the basics of pve. Well the basics of pve didn't work that's why all the new games are called "themepark". This game sounds good to idealists but realists see it will probably not work. You can't make normal pve so hard it requires groups. The majority of mmorpg players are not running around in groups. Unless they have a really good matchmaking system like Rift had. I'm not saying its impossible. But I am saying the average developer lacks the sense to make such a thing happen effectively.
I'm looking forward to some good old fashion dungeon crawling with a group of like minded players, and helping that poor guy over their next to the tree kill that hard to kill monster.
Maybe will make friends and play a few hours. Maybe I'll add him to my long friends list I plan on having
That guy next to the tree will not be there. Because he quit and went to play another game. Because he died 2 times and the penalty was too harsh and he didn't want to stand around for 5 hours waiting for some dude to show up. He just wanted to enjoy the game. New games figured out long time ago you need to make both group and solo content. This game is advertising group only content and well I just don't see it working.
Not every game is for everyone, nor are games that claim to be made for everyone as they are simply games made for the lowest common denominator. Me personally, I can't stand those types of games and really can't seem to tolerate the people that do, so its a win/win!
Those of us who want a game like Pantheon will play it while the rest can run off and play WoW or whatever face rolling self esteem building game out there. You see, there is a game for everyone, you just don't have to make everyone play the same game!
I think you forgot the title of this thread. Which strongly implies that this mmo is made for a massive amount of players who will show the AAA market where the money really is. I agree it is only a niche game and will not attract masses like he thinks but I have been wrong before.
Not every game is for everyone, nor are games that claim to be made for everyone as they are simply games made for the lowest common denominator. Me personally, I can't stand those types of games and really can't seem to tolerate the people that do, so its a win/win!
Those of us who want a game like Pantheon will play it while the rest can run off and play WoW or whatever face rolling self esteem building game out there. You see, there is a game for everyone, you just don't have to make everyone play the same game!
I think you forgot the title of this thread. Which strongly implies that this mmo is made for a massive amount of players who will show the AAA market where the money really is. I agree it is only a niche game and will not attract masses like he thinks but I have been wrong before.
Well, just to reiterate, that all-inclusive design is not what Visionary Realms is aiming for, nor is the OPs opinion held by most of Pantheon's fans (as you can see by looking at most of his threads in this subforum).
However, Pantheon's niche is huge. It is probably the biggest "niche" in the MMO genre, having seen many millions of players even during the "classic" era of EverQuest while Verant (McQuaid) was at the helm. Outside of the linear, casual fantasy quest grinder PvE MMO (WoW and its subsequent clones), no other type of MMO surpassed the playerbase of EQ which had nearly a half a million concurrent players, and over 10 million accounts prior to WoW.
That doesn't mean I think it will be a "killer" of any game, only that those who think there is only a tiny collective of people waiting for a game like Pantheon are kidding themselves.
Late to the party on this thread, and before I comment on the affect this game may have, first convince me that it is going to release at all. The last I heard they were trying to produce a good enough prototype to attract the big funding they need to complete the project. Has this changed at all?
Hiya Craftseeker, while I do not really want to bump this thread, I do want to address your question: You can find the latest update here: https://www.pantheonmmo.com/news/latest_news :
Visionary Realms Aqcuires Seed Funding, Completes Prototype for Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen
Posted date / 09.28.15
Carlsbad, CA - September 28, 2015 - Visionary Realms — a
startup studio from globally renowned designer, Brad McQuaid — announced
today that it has received the seed funding required to bring their
first MMO game, Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen, through prototype and into
alpha. The funding came from an angel investor and has allowed Visionary
Realms to expand its team, build a prototype of the game, and launch
two new websites to showcase both the company and the game. Additionally
the funding has granted the studio enough resources to bring the game
into an alpha phase, where external players will get a chance to test it
and provide early feedback. “This has been a game changer for us,” stated Chief Creative
Officer, Brad McQuaid. “We’ve been able to fill in some key roles, from
artists to programmers and designers. This in turn has allowed us to
complete the last pieces of the prototype and we are now preparing the
game for alpha. Now is when things start to get really fun — we have a
playable game we can soon start to show. We can’t wait to start bringing
in players to get their thoughts.” Visionary Realms aims to begin Pantheon’s alpha phase by the end of the year, ultimately targeting a 2017 release.
All i know is if this game has yellow markers or ANY markers over npc heads,i am so not into it. If it is nothing but linear questing,connect the dots mapping and direction, again i am not interested.
Altaholics,not interested,they need to lose the flaws of EQ1 and EQ2 and create a BETTER game.
Puit some effort int oeach system,that is why i mentioned clustered mobs on the same AI.Instead of just placijng mobs into a map hand design each one,give them various aggro ranges,maybe some link towards others maybe some don't maybe some can hear better maybe some can see better.
Even the combat needs more depth,make the TYPE of weapon really matter,type of spell really matter. Quests need to have a reason,they should not be placeholders for gaining xp.You should be questing a skill to learn Block ,Parry,you should be questing to learn how to properly use a weapon type and learn it's hidden abilities.You should be questing to learn how to cook or craft.
If you are going to add some realism "as should be" then when you go fetch npc those 10 bear pelts he should need a couple days to actually craft that reward for you,it should not be instantly handed over to you.
Basically i want to see a hand crafted passionate game design,not just systems to support a level number and quests to support a level number.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Can someone bookmark this topic so that a year after release can visit back and laugh at this utter tripe? this is the funniest thing i have read in a long while. A niche indie game gonna upset the big guys. lol
Except you'll never have the experience you had in those games 15 years ago. It will never have the same type of population as there is just to wide a market now a days. People have to many choices and will just leave and go elsewhere instead of tolerating the "harshness" that was common then. If it was something people wanted in games now it would be there. As you can see it's not and your argument is very flawed.
Many choices? Maybe across multiple genres, but not across MMOs.
Too harsh? I didn't feel that way, and neither did most of the millions, perhaps 10s of millions of people who played EQ.
There are plenty of people who want harder games with a greater focus on challenge, multiplayer gameplay, and immersion instead of the convenience and accessibility that has replaced them. It doesn't have to draw millions, or even 100s of thousands to be success, and we are OK with that.
EQ at it's max had 500k players. Maybe millions tried but only 500k stayed and that was in 2004. I don't know of anyone that wants to spend a month leveling in a "hell level" to die and de-level. Sounds pretty harsh and like shitty game mechanics to me.
Also, yes many choices. There are literally 100's of mmos to choose from. When EQ came out there was 3 in the west. So yeah I'd say there are more choices.
As far as population you'll have no choice but to be okay with having a minimal playerbase because that all you'll have under pretty much any circumstance.
Not every game is for everyone, nor are games that claim to be made for everyone as they are simply games made for the lowest common denominator. Me personally, I can't stand those types of games and really can't seem to tolerate the people that do, so its a win/win!
Those of us who want a game like Pantheon will play it while the rest can run off and play WoW or whatever face rolling self esteem building game out there. You see, there is a game for everyone, you just don't have to make everyone play the same game!
I think you forgot the title of this thread. Which strongly implies that this mmo is made for a massive amount of players who will show the AAA market where the money really is. I agree it is only a niche game and will not attract masses like he thinks but I have been wrong before.
Well, just to reiterate, that all-inclusive design is not what Visionary Realms is aiming for, nor is the OPs opinion held by most of Pantheon's fans (as you can see by looking at most of his threads in this subforum).
However, Pantheon's niche is huge. It is probably the biggest "niche" in the MMO genre, having seen many millions of players even during the "classic" era of EverQuest while Verant (McQuaid) was at the helm. Outside of the linear, casual fantasy quest grinder PvE MMO (WoW and its subsequent clones), no other type of MMO surpassed the playerbase of EQ which had nearly a half a million concurrent players, and over 10 million accounts prior to WoW.
That doesn't mean I think it will be a "killer" of any game, only that those who think there is only a tiny collective of people waiting for a game like Pantheon are kidding themselves.
Lineage surpasses EQ still to this day. But I guess that can be an overlooked fact to try and prove "your" point.
Honestly, though you are completely living in the past. There is a reason developers don't make these type of game anymore. If the niche was as huge as you say a larger developer would jump all over it. However, that hasn't happened and won't. There is no money to be made in doing so. You are a dying breed.
Seriously, this game will more then likely be like ever other game Brad has made. I don't feel like I need to elaborate on his track record.
The problem is the bulk of this new MMO fanbase doesn't give two craps about community. They want solo games where they can chat with their friends and grief/troll on the side for fun. Any game that features community is going to be niche now because this is not what the masses want, or the genre would have never devolved from what it was to the crap it is now.
This is why i don't consider 70-80% of what is currently considered the MMO playerbase to be actuall MMO players. They're crossover players. They're single player RPG players, and console players who had to be hard sold to come over by making MMO's into something they would like, which is to say, single player games.
MMOs were founded and predicated upon the idea of interacting with hundreds if not thousands of other human beings in the same virtual world. Now, we can argue and stretch the meaning of interact to cover just about anything, but most of us wouldn't consider a situation in which you never ever have to rely on another player to achieve anything in the game to be interactive.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
The problem is the bulk of this new MMO fanbase doesn't give two craps about community. They want solo games where they can chat with their friends and grief/troll on the side for fun. Any game that features community is going to be niche now because this is not what the masses want, or the genre would have never devolved from what it was to the crap it is now.
This is why i don't consider 70-80% of what is currently considered the MMO playerbase to be actuall MMO players. They're crossover players. They're single player RPG players, and console players who had to be hard sold to come over by making MMO's into something they would like, which is to say, single player games.
MMOs were founded and predicated upon the idea of interacting with hundreds if not thousands of other human beings in the same virtual world. Now, we can argue and stretch the meaning of interact to cover just about anything, but most of us wouldn't consider a situation in which you never ever have to rely on another player to achieve anything in the game to be interactive.
Where do you think MMO gamers came from? They weren't just spontaneously created by the MMO gods to populate the holy realms of interaction. We were gamers and tech geeks who were stoked at the thought of gaming together on persistent servers. The thought about "inter-dependence" or "relying on one another" didn't really come into the discussion until we were already there.
There is no doubt that this is a game, many gamers have been asking for. Myself included. Funny thing is, people often dont know what they want. Question remains, will people really support the game if its good? Population has become so trained to eat hub, quick leveling games I am not sure there is any real gamers left. We have gotten to the point games like Trove are seen as a big deal lol. I hope gamers can find their way out of the mire to real games again.
OK, Lineage, I stand corrected. I guess it slipped my mind being that I'm from the west, clearly speaking about western games, and in 17 years of MMOs I can count the number of people I've known that played Lineage on 1 hand.
Nevertheless, older styled, hardcore games are back in fashion in many other genres, and not even accounting for all those "potential players", Pantheon's niche consists of millions of people who've long awaited another game like EQ. Anyone thats read this forum, especially over the last few years, knows this and pretending otherwise is silly.
However, I'm not in any way attempting to make it seem like Visionary Realms is making anything but a game for a smaller core audience. Only pointing out for the naysayers, that the core audience is not as small as you'd like to pretend.
Just for some clarification on the EQ numbers being thrown around here in this discussion. Here's a quote from Brad (Aradune) earlier this year on Pantheon's official forums:
Posted by Aradune 1/14/15 at 5:34 PM
"Just some EQ factoids: EQ peaked at ~550k subscribers. EQ cost $8M to make, and took three years. EQ is one of the most, if not the most, profitable enterprises Sony has ever created. It has made over $500M for the company. EQ remains to this day a profitable game, with enough subscribers to pay for Expansions and a decent sized dev team."
OK, Lineage, I stand corrected. I guess it slipped my mind being that I'm from the west, clearly speaking about western games, and in 17 years of MMOs I can count the number of people I've known that played Lineage on 1 hand.
Nevertheless, older styled, hardcore games are back in fashion in many other genres, and not even accounting for all those "potential players", Pantheon's niche consists of millions of people who've long awaited another game like EQ. Anyone thats read this forum, especially over the last few years, knows this and pretending otherwise is silly.
However, I'm not in any way attempting to make it seem like Visionary Realms is making anything but a game for a smaller core audience. Only pointing out for the naysayers, that the core audience is not as small as you'd like to pretend.
I don't think you've really pointed anything out though. Having 500k concurrent subscribers 12 years ago, a good chunk of whom left for WoW, doesn't by any stretch prove that millions of people are waiting for Pantheon.
Given how long it's been since a game anything like EQ1 has been released I think it's a fairly open question about how many would play.
OK, Lineage, I stand corrected. I guess it slipped my mind being that I'm from the west, clearly speaking about western games, and in 17 years of MMOs I can count the number of people I've known that played Lineage on 1 hand.
Nevertheless, older styled, hardcore games are back in fashion in many other genres, and not even accounting for all those "potential players", Pantheon's niche consists of millions of people who've long awaited another game like EQ. Anyone thats read this forum, especially over the last few years, knows this and pretending otherwise is silly.
However, I'm not in any way attempting to make it seem like Visionary Realms is making anything but a game for a smaller core audience. Only pointing out for the naysayers, that the core audience is not as small as you'd like to pretend.
I don't think you've really pointed anything out though. Having 500k concurrent subscribers 12 years ago, a good chunk of whom left for WoW, doesn't by any stretch prove that millions of people are waiting for Pantheon.
Given how long it's been since a game anything like EQ1 has been released I think it's a fairly open question about how many would play.
True. There is no telling, but if even a fraction of the people who once enjoyed EQ played Pantheon, that would be more than enough tto make it a successful game. That is without even taking into consideration things like the resurgence of hardcore games across many genres and the possibility of them playing. Even Vanguard, after a rough beta and an early launch still managed to draw a quarter of a million sales. For that matter, EQ emulator has even more registered users than that.
My only point is, the interest is still there, whether some people like it or not.
The problem is the bulk of this new MMO fanbase doesn't give two craps about community. They want solo games where they can chat with their friends and grief/troll on the side for fun. Any game that features community is going to be niche now because this is not what the masses want, or the genre would have never devolved from what it was to the crap it is now.
This is why i don't consider 70-80% of what is currently considered the MMO playerbase to be actuall MMO players. They're crossover players. They're single player RPG players, and console players who had to be hard sold to come over by making MMO's into something they would like, which is to say, single player games.
MMOs were founded and predicated upon the idea of interacting with hundreds if not thousands of other human beings in the same virtual world. Now, we can argue and stretch the meaning of interact to cover just about anything, but most of us wouldn't consider a situation in which you never ever have to rely on another player to achieve anything in the game to be interactive.
Where do you think MMO gamers came from? They weren't just spontaneously created by the MMO gods to populate the holy realms of interaction. We were gamers and tech geeks who were stoked at the thought of gaming together on persistent servers. The thought about "inter-dependence" or "relying on one another" didn't really come into the discussion until we were already there.
You're misunderstanding me. What has happened is the genre has been redefined to where MMORPG has a much looser and broader meaning than when it burst into existence. However i have to disagree with you. Everyone i talked to, everyone who i got into the game, etc, was based on a discussion that went something like this, "Wait, you said there are hundreds of people on the same server? and you can go kill dragons and stuff with dozens of people? No way?!?!!". Thats obviously paraphrasing, but you get my point. The whole point of being stoked to game on persistent servers was because those persistent servers contained other players you could interact with, group with, trade with, etc etc.
Battlenet was around back then. Nobody was talking about how cool it was that you could play starcraft with 3 other people at the same time AND chat with a million other people. Thats what MMOs have been redefined as. Basically a single player or lightly multiplayer game, where there just happen to be a few hundred other people in the general vicinity.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
The problem is the bulk of this new MMO fanbase doesn't give two craps about community. They want solo games where they can chat with their friends and grief/troll on the side for fun. Any game that features community is going to be niche now because this is not what the masses want, or the genre would have never devolved from what it was to the crap it is now.
This is why i don't consider 70-80% of what is currently considered the MMO playerbase to be actuall MMO players. They're crossover players. They're single player RPG players, and console players who had to be hard sold to come over by making MMO's into something they would like, which is to say, single player games.
MMOs were founded and predicated upon the idea of interacting with hundreds if not thousands of other human beings in the same virtual world. Now, we can argue and stretch the meaning of interact to cover just about anything, but most of us wouldn't consider a situation in which you never ever have to rely on another player to achieve anything in the game to be interactive.
Where do you think MMO gamers came from? They weren't just spontaneously created by the MMO gods to populate the holy realms of interaction. We were gamers and tech geeks who were stoked at the thought of gaming together on persistent servers. The thought about "inter-dependence" or "relying on one another" didn't really come into the discussion until we were already there.
You're misunderstanding me. What has happened is the genre has been redefined to where MMORPG has a much looser and broader meaning than when it burst into existence. However i have to disagree with you. Everyone i talked to, everyone who i got into the game, etc, was based on a discussion that went something like this, "Wait, you said there are hundreds of people on the same server? and you can go kill dragons and stuff with dozens of people? No way?!?!!". Thats obviously paraphrasing, but you get my point. The whole point of being stoked to game on persistent servers was because those persistent servers contained other players you could interact with, group with, trade with, etc etc.
Battlenet was around back then. Nobody was talking about how cool it was that you could play starcraft with 3 other people at the same time AND chat with a million other people. Thats what MMOs have been redefined as. Basically a single player or lightly multiplayer game, where there just happen to be a few hundred other people in the general vicinity.
You keep saying "the genre has been redefined" - by whom?
There are still plenty of games today where players are interacting and doing things together. My guild has been together with the same core group since eq1 back in 1999.
Nothing had changed for us.
There were players back than that soloed, there were players that grouped - same is true 15 years later.
Very true except for the somewhat massive difference that 15 years ago MMOs were designed around multiplayer content, not players independently playing with an option of talking or playing together. 15 years ago, soloing was the exception. Today, grouping is, especially outside of "end game."
You're misunderstanding me. What has happened is the genre has been redefined to where MMORPG has a much looser and broader meaning than when it burst into existence. However i have to disagree with you. Everyone i talked to, everyone who i got into the game, etc, was based on a discussion that went something like this, "Wait, you said there are hundreds of people on the same server? and you can go kill dragons and stuff with dozens of people? No way?!?!!". Thats obviously paraphrasing, but you get my point. The whole point of being stoked to game on persistent servers was because those persistent servers contained other players you could interact with, group with, trade with, etc etc.
Battlenet was around back then. Nobody was talking about how cool it was that you could play starcraft with 3 other people at the same time AND chat with a million other people. Thats what MMOs have been redefined as. Basically a single player or lightly multiplayer game, where there just happen to be a few hundred other people in the general vicinity.
You keep saying "the genre has been redefined" - by whom?
There are still plenty of games today where players are interacting and doing things together. My guild has been together with the same core group since eq1 back in 1999.
Nothing had changed for us.
There were players back than that soloed, there were players that grouped - same is true 15 years later.
Very true except for the somewhat massive difference that 15 years ago MMOs were designed around multiplayer content, not players independently playing with an option of talking or playing together. 15 years ago, soloing was the exception. Today, grouping is, especially outside of "end game."
No, they weren't designed around multiplayer content. EQ may have been, but Lineage, UO, and AC were not really. There was just content in those games and you could choose to tackle at any group size from 1 to a hundred.
That's not to say there wasn't content that was multiplayer, like sieges, but the core game didn't require it. Farming mobs, bosses, dungeons, or other players was all a personal choice as to how it was approached.
In fact it was a tradeoff. Solo, duo or small group meant you got a better share of the xp and loot, but greater risk of loss for failure. Going in a group meant fewer drops but safer farming and possibly better xp if you could farm fast enough. That's where the tougher content (like lower dungeon levels, upper tower levels, etc) paid off for groups - they could farm the higher xp mobs faster than you could solo or duo them. But that didn't mean you couldn't do it solo successfully.
EQ may have been more rigid, but those other games encouraged the multiplayer aspect far more than modern games. In fact, it was pretty foolish to try to play most first gen games alone, even if it was technically possible.
EQ was before the millions of new online gamer's arrived,Lineage is a Korean game,there are massive differences when gaming in your homeleand game.Puzzles and dragons sold in the millions while right next door in Korea it barely sold at all,vice versa nobody in Jpn was playing Lineage while in Korea everyone was playing it.this is not an indication of game quality what so ever.
Games from 2000-2005 have nothing to base anything off of because there was literally no competition in each market,very little choice ,people were not droning into one game or another based on quality.
A large developer like Blizzard will barely take notice of this game,they instead will be looking at niche markets to invade and simply put their mark on that genre and likely profit well no matter the quality of the game.Besides that there are only a couple BIG developers in the mmorpg genre Blizzard,Square,Zenimax and of those three only Square has more than one mmorpg,so really is there even one big developer in the mmorpg market,no there isn't.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Not every game is for everyone, nor are games that claim to be made for everyone as they are simply games made for the lowest common denominator. Me personally, I can't stand those types of games and really can't seem to tolerate the people that do, so its a win/win!
Those of us who want a game like Pantheon will play it while the rest can run off and play WoW or whatever face rolling self esteem building game out there. You see, there is a game for everyone, you just don't have to make everyone play the same game!
I think you forgot the title of this thread. Which strongly implies that this mmo is made for a massive amount of players who will show the AAA market where the money really is. I agree it is only a niche game and will not attract masses like he thinks but I have been wrong before.
Well, just to reiterate, that all-inclusive design is not what Visionary Realms is aiming for, nor is the OPs opinion held by most of Pantheon's fans (as you can see by looking at most of his threads in this subforum).
However, Pantheon's niche is huge. It is probably the biggest "niche" in the MMO genre, having seen many millions of players even during the "classic" era of EverQuest while Verant (McQuaid) was at the helm. Outside of the linear, casual fantasy quest grinder PvE MMO (WoW and its subsequent clones), no other type of MMO surpassed the playerbase of EQ which had nearly a half a million concurrent players, and over 10 million accounts prior to WoW.
That doesn't mean I think it will be a "killer" of any game, only that those who think there is only a tiny collective of people waiting for a game like Pantheon are kidding themselves.
The EQ/Vanguard niche is small. If i was making a MMORPG i would be going after the vanilla WoW crowd which is many times bigger then add in things like diplomacy from VG.
You keep saying "the genre has been redefined" - by whom?
There are still plenty of games today where players are interacting and doing things together. My guild has been together with the same core group since eq1 back in 1999.
Nothing had changed for us.
There were players back than that soloed, there were players that grouped - same is true 15 years later.
If you dont get it then it just proves to me that developers just dont get it. Your just one of many that think the norm today is just fine. Sure people soloed back then, but that was only a few classes could do it well. Even then, the solo classes only really shined when teamed and even then, solo classes needed to team at some point to get content done so they could really progress. So in the end, all classes forced people to team and in the end made communities that were stronger. People knew their rolls teamed and speced their classes to make sure they passed the bar needed to team.
Most of todays games design classes to be many flavors of DPS. Every class can solo from 1 to top level. There is nothing driving players together so most gamers never take part of the community. They never spec their classes for teaming as all they needed to think about was the solo side of things. They get to end game and presented with a new game. Where teaming is needed and their class and play style is not geared to teaming.
Sure there are pockets of gamers like your self who have been playing together since 1999 but thats mostly because you have already been trained to think that way. Games now cater to the solo mind set and thats the problem.
"Redefined" yes thats right, this game is a rebirth of going back to the roots of what made MMOs great. Communities built on teaming. Where from low level people are encouraged to team because of how the content is made and the classes design. When people get to end game in this game. People will know their rolls in a team and have friends they made on the way because the game did hand hold them to top level. Rather it forced them to stop and talk to people to make teams. Sad you dont get that.
I'm still waiting for a modern remake of UO that actually gets what made UO work, and that actually understands why the Trammel/Felucca split was the best thing to happen to the game.
Remade EQ? They've already done that - a hundred times. The BEST EQ remake has already come and gone and is really one of the few MMOs still worth playing - WoW.
I'm still waiting for a modern remake of UO that actually gets what made UO work, and that actually understands why the Trammel/Felucca split was the best thing to happen to the game.
Remade EQ? They've already done that - a hundred times. The BEST EQ remake has already come and gone and is really one of the few MMOs still worth playing - WoW.
WoW lost that title many expansions ago. It is a shell of its former self I do not wish to play.
Comments
Nearly every MMORPG now has PvP as a large part of it.. It isnt needed in every game all the time. Not as a main feature anyway. An MMORPG not having PvP isnt going to kill it.
Lets get / see this genre move back to closer mirroring the tabletop games ( MUDs and GMUDs too ) they were based off of and not a genre that tries to be everything and being average or worse at it.. Just MO.
However, Pantheon's niche is huge. It is probably the biggest "niche" in the MMO genre, having seen many millions of players even during the "classic" era of EverQuest while Verant (McQuaid) was at the helm. Outside of the linear, casual fantasy quest grinder PvE MMO (WoW and its subsequent clones), no other type of MMO surpassed the playerbase of EQ which had nearly a half a million concurrent players, and over 10 million accounts prior to WoW.
That doesn't mean I think it will be a "killer" of any game, only that those who think there is only a tiny collective of people waiting for a game like Pantheon are kidding themselves.
You can find the latest update here: https://www.pantheonmmo.com/news/latest_news :
If it is nothing but linear questing,connect the dots mapping and direction, again i am not interested.
Altaholics,not interested,they need to lose the flaws of EQ1 and EQ2 and create a BETTER game.
Puit some effort int oeach system,that is why i mentioned clustered mobs on the same AI.Instead of just placijng mobs into a map hand design each one,give them various aggro ranges,maybe some link towards others maybe some don't maybe some can hear better maybe some can see better.
Even the combat needs more depth,make the TYPE of weapon really matter,type of spell really matter.
Quests need to have a reason,they should not be placeholders for gaining xp.You should be questing a skill to learn Block ,Parry,you should be questing to learn how to properly use a weapon type and learn it's hidden abilities.You should be questing to learn how to cook or craft.
If you are going to add some realism "as should be" then when you go fetch npc those 10 bear pelts he should need a couple days to actually craft that reward for you,it should not be instantly handed over to you.
Basically i want to see a hand crafted passionate game design,not just systems to support a level number and quests to support a level number.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Also, yes many choices. There are literally 100's of mmos to choose from. When EQ came out there was 3 in the west. So yeah I'd say there are more choices.
As far as population you'll have no choice but to be okay with having a minimal playerbase because that all you'll have under pretty much any circumstance.
Lineage surpasses EQ still to this day. But I guess that can be an overlooked fact to try and prove "your" point.
Honestly, though you are completely living in the past. There is a reason developers don't make these type of game anymore. If the niche was as huge as you say a larger developer would jump all over it. However, that hasn't happened and won't. There is no money to be made in doing so. You are a dying breed.
Seriously, this game will more then likely be like ever other game Brad has made. I don't feel like I need to elaborate on his track record.
MMOs were founded and predicated upon the idea of interacting with hundreds if not thousands of other human beings in the same virtual world. Now, we can argue and stretch the meaning of interact to cover just about anything, but most of us wouldn't consider a situation in which you never ever have to rely on another player to achieve anything in the game to be interactive.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Nevertheless, older styled, hardcore games are back in fashion in many other genres, and not even accounting for all those "potential players", Pantheon's niche consists of millions of people who've long awaited another game like EQ. Anyone thats read this forum, especially over the last few years, knows this and pretending otherwise is silly.
However, I'm not in any way attempting to make it seem like Visionary Realms is making anything but a game for a smaller core audience. Only pointing out for the naysayers, that the core audience is not as small as you'd like to pretend.
Posted by Aradune 1/14/15 at 5:34 PM
Given how long it's been since a game anything like EQ1 has been released I think it's a fairly open question about how many would play.
My only point is, the interest is still there, whether some people like it or not.
Battlenet was around back then. Nobody was talking about how cool it was that you could play starcraft with 3 other people at the same time AND chat with a million other people. Thats what MMOs have been redefined as. Basically a single player or lightly multiplayer game, where there just happen to be a few hundred other people in the general vicinity.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
You are riding that technicality pretty hard.
Games from 2000-2005 have nothing to base anything off of because there was literally no competition in each market,very little choice ,people were not droning into one game or another based on quality.
A large developer like Blizzard will barely take notice of this game,they instead will be looking at niche markets to invade and simply put their mark on that genre and likely profit well no matter the quality of the game.Besides that there are only a couple BIG developers in the mmorpg genre Blizzard,Square,Zenimax and of those three only Square has more than one mmorpg,so really is there even one big developer in the mmorpg market,no there isn't.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
The EQ/Vanguard niche is small. If i was making a MMORPG i would be going after the vanilla WoW crowd which is many times bigger then add in things like diplomacy from VG.
Most of todays games design classes to be many flavors of DPS. Every class can solo from 1 to top level. There is nothing driving players together so most gamers never take part of the community. They never spec their classes for teaming as all they needed to think about was the solo side of things. They get to end game and presented with a new game. Where teaming is needed and their class and play style is not geared to teaming.
Sure there are pockets of gamers like your self who have been playing together since 1999 but thats mostly because you have already been trained to think that way. Games now cater to the solo mind set and thats the problem.
"Redefined" yes thats right, this game is a rebirth of going back to the roots of what made MMOs great. Communities built on teaming. Where from low level people are encouraged to team because of how the content is made and the classes design. When people get to end game in this game. People will know their rolls in a team and have friends they made on the way because the game did hand hold them to top level. Rather it forced them to stop and talk to people to make teams. Sad you dont get that.
Remade EQ? They've already done that - a hundred times. The BEST EQ remake has already come and gone and is really one of the few MMOs still worth playing - WoW.